Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Friday, October 13, 2006
Charles Krauthammer :: Townhall.com Columnist
Disarming North Korea
by Charles Krauthammer
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Who won Tuesday's presidential debate?


It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union. -- President John F. Kennedy, Oct. 22, 1962

Now that's deterrence.

Kennedy was pledging that if any nuke was launched from Cuba, the United States would not even bother with Cuba but go directly to the source and bring the apocalypse to Russia with a massive nuclear attack.

The remarkable thing about this kind of threat is that in 1962 it was very credible. Indeed, its credibility kept the peace throughout a half-century of Cold War.

Deterrence is what you do when there is no way to disarm your enemy. You cannot deprive him of his weapons, but you can keep him from using them. We long ago reached that stage with North Korea.

Everyone has tried to figure out how to disarm North Korea. It will not happen. Kim Jong Il is not going to give up his nukes. The only way to disarm the regime is to destroy it. China could do that with sanctions, but will not. The United States could do that with a second Korean War, but will not, either.

So we are back to deterrence. Hence the familiar echoes of the Cuban Missile Crisis with North Korea's rude entry into the nuclear club this week. The U.S. had to immediately put down markers for deterrence. President Bush put down two.

One marker, preventing a direct attack on our allies in the region, was straightforward, if bland: ``I reaffirmed to our allies in the region, including South Korea and Japan,'' the president said in a nationally televised statement, ``that the United States will meet the full range of our deterrent and security commitments.'' It is understood by all that the decades-old American nuclear umbrella in the Pacific Rim commits us to attacking North Korea -- presumably with in-kind nuclear retaliation -- were it to attack our allies first.

Gruesome stuff, but run-of-the-mill in the nuclear age. The hard part is the second marker Bush tried to put down: proliferation deterrence.

We are in a new era far more complicated than Kennedy's because his great crisis occurred before the age of terrorism. The world of 1962 was still technologically and ideologically primitive: Miniaturized nuclear weaponry had not yet been invented, nor had modern international terrorism. Yasser Arafat and the PLO gave the world that gift half a decade later with their perfection of the political airline hijacking.

Terrorism has since grown in popularity, ambition and menace. Its practitioners are in the market for nuclear weapons. North Korea has little else to sell. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Charles Krauthammer is a 1987 Pulitzer Prize winner, 1984 National Magazine Award winner, and a columnist for The Washington Post since 1985.

Be the first to read Charles Krauthammer's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Subject: Tom
Not quite clear what you were getting at in a couple of paragraphs,but the point I tried to make to r2d2,was NK. was throwing a tantrum because no one was paying attention.
Then Clinton thought it would be a good idea to apease the little pygmy.
This was why I was blaming Clinton,everyone living human knows you do not give a spoiled child what they want.
Nor,do you give in to a lying black mailer.
Which is why I said look at the history prior to Clinton.
Had he looked he would have found,ignoring him was working quite well,kind of.
Now he is center stage,and using the publicity like a club.

Partisans & S Koreans protesters
I thought that the Cindy Sheehan crowd were the preserve of the Dems. Looking at this thread, I see the GOP has them too! R2D2 made an undeniable point (even if given far too much significance by him. But admittedly its a great comeback to those who say Clinton was responsible, & v.v). He is a partisan, but so are more than a few of the posters here. He blamed Bush for NK, only after someone else blamed the Dems. He got into ad-hominems, but only after he was on the receiving end. He became respectful, when people treated him with respect. Do I agree with his general line or style? No.

We need to start getting away from the idea that a certain President was responsible for something as monumental a development as NK & nukes, or 9/11. People who peddle that line belong in the cave man days when every event under the sun could be attributed to this or that god (president). Themes like the following are pathetic. Note the emphases both place on the president "at fault":

"I will place blame where it squarely belongs,for we would not be here discusing this debacle today if not for CLINTON." (Yeah! Burn him at the stake!!!)(in fairness to Solar, he initially said that one needed to go back earlier than Clinton to understand the present predicament)

and

"So again, AS I SAID, BUSH LET US DOWN!!" (Yeah, Die, Witch!!!)

We are all experts in hindsight, unlike the sitting president who has to deal with the here and now & try to keep everyone happy, not only inside & outisde the country (UN), but also the folks present & future. He is on a razor's edge.

Good to see some responsible posters from both sides come to the fore & bring the argument back to WHAT DO WE DO WITH NK NOW? Wonder what R2's theory there is. For all his posts, he didn't seem interested in such a minor thing as that.

For my 2 pennies worth, insist S Korea hold a referendum on whether USA should stay or leave. It's easy to be an (anti-US) "peace" protester when the US are protecting you. Not so easy when you have to defend yourself. Let's see what those cowardly S Korean protesters really think.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.